1208986 COVER SHEET FOR PROPOSAL TO THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION NSF 10-593 11/07/11

Transcription

COVER SHEET FOR PROPOSAL TO THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT/SOLICITATION NO./CLOSING DATE/if not in response to a program announcement/solicitation enter NSF 11-1
NSF 10-593
FOR NSF USE ONLY
NSF PROPOSAL NUMBER
11/07/11
FOR CONSIDERATION BY NSF ORGANIZATION UNIT(S)
1208986
(Indicate the most specific unit known, i.e. program, division, etc.)
HRD - ADVANCE - IT-START
DATE RECEIVED NUMBER OF COPIES DIVISION ASSIGNED FUND CODE DUNS#
11/07/2011
1
11060000 HRD
EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN) OR
TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (TIN)
7690
FILE LOCATION
(Data Universal Numbering System)
071649644
11/07/2011 10:54am
IS THIS PROPOSAL BEING SUBMITTED TO ANOTHER FEDERAL
AGENCY?
YES
NO
IF YES, LIST ACRONYM(S)
SHOW PREVIOUS AWARD NO. IF THIS IS
A RENEWAL
AN ACCOMPLISHMENT-BASED RENEWAL
314379532
NAME OF ORGANIZATION TO WHICH AWARD SHOULD BE MADE
ADDRESS OF AWARDEE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE
Otterbein College
1 S. Grove St.
Westerville, OH. 430812006
Otterbein College
AWARDEE ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN)
0031104000
NAME OF PRIMARY PLACE OF PERF
ADDRESS OF PRIMARY PLACE OF PERF, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE
Otterbein College
Otterbein College
OH ,430812006 ,US.
IS AWARDEE ORGANIZATION (Check All That Apply)
(See GPG II.C For Definitions)
TITLE OF PROPOSED PROJECT
MINORITY BUSINESS
IF THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
WOMAN-OWNED BUSINESS THEN CHECK HERE
IT Catalyst - Equity through Inquiry: ADVANCE at Otterbein University
REQUESTED AMOUNT
PROPOSED DURATION (1-60 MONTHS)
199,744
$
SMALL BUSINESS
FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION
24
REQUESTED STARTING DATE
07/01/12
months
SHOW RELATED PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL NO.
IF APPLICABLE
CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) IF THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES ANY OF THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW
BEGINNING INVESTIGATOR (GPG I.G.2)
HUMAN SUBJECTS (GPG II.D.7) Human Subjects Assurance Number
Exemption Subsection
PROPRIETARY & PRIVILEGED INFORMATION (GPG I.D, II.C.1.d)
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES: COUNTRY/COUNTRIES INVOLVED
HISTORIC PLACES (GPG II.C.2.j)
(GPG II.C.2.j)
EAGER* (GPG II.D.2)
RAPID** (GPG II.D.1)
VERTEBRATE ANIMALS (GPG II.D.6) IACUC App. Date
HIGH RESOLUTION GRAPHICS/OTHER GRAPHICS WHERE EXACT COLOR
REPRESENTATION IS REQUIRED FOR PROPER INTERPRETATION (GPG I.G.1)
PHS Animal Welfare Assurance Number
PI/PD DEPARTMENT
PI/PD POSTAL ADDRESS
1 S. Grove St.
Psychology
PI/PD FAX NUMBER
Westerville, OH 430812006
United States
614-823-3285
NAMES (TYPED)
or IRB App. Date
Pending
DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (GPG II.C.1.e)
High Degree
Yr of Degree
Telephone Number
Electronic Mail Address
PhD
1994
614-823-1846
macker@otterbein.edu
PhD
2004
614-823-1846
sbouchard@otterbein.edu
PhD
1996
614-823-1846
peisenstein@otterbein.edu
PhD
2000
614-823-1846
sfatherly@otterbein.edu
PhD
2007
614-823-1846
tpempek@otterbein.edu
PI/PD NAME
Michele Acker
CO-PI/PD
Sarah Bouchard
CO-PI/PD
Paul Eisenstein
CO-PI/PD
Sarah Fatherly
CO-PI/PD
Tiffany Pempek
Page 1 of 2
Electronic Signature
CERTIFICATION PAGE
Certification for Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual Applicant:
By signing and submitting this proposal, the Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual Applicant is: (1) certifying that statements made herein are true and complete to the best
of his/her knowledge; and (2) agreeing to accept the obligation to comply with NSF award terms and conditions if an award is made as a result of this application. Further, the applicant is
hereby providing certifications regarding debarment and suspension, drug-free workplace, lobbying activities (see below), responsible conduct of research, nondiscrimination, and flood hazard
insurance (when applicable) as set forth in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide, Part I: the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) (NSF 11-1). Willful provision of false information
in this application and its supporting documents or in reports required under an ensuing award is a criminal offense (U. S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001).
Conflict of Interest Certification
In addition, if the applicant institution employs more than fifty persons, by electronically signing the NSF Proposal Cover Sheet, the Authorized Organizational Representative of the applicant
institution is certifying that the institution has implemented a written and enforced conflict of interest policy that is consistent with the provisions of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies &
Procedures Guide, Part II, Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter IV.A; that to the best of his/her knowledge, all financial disclosures required by that conflict of interest policy have
been made; and that all identified conflicts of interest will have been satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated prior to the institution’s expenditure of any funds under the award, in
accordance with the institution’s conflict of interest policy. Conflicts which cannot be satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated must be disclosed to NSF.
Drug Free Work Place Certification
By electronically signing the NSF Proposal Cover Sheet, the Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual Applicant is providing the Drug
Free Work Place Certification contained in Exhibit II-3 of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Debarment and Suspension Certification
(If answer "yes", please provide explanation.)
Is the organization or its principals presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded
from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency?
Yes
No
By electronically signing the NSF Proposal Cover Sheet, the Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual Applicant is providing the
Debarment and Suspension Certification contained in Exhibit II-4 of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Certification Regarding Lobbying
The following certification is required for an award of a Federal contract, grant, or cooperative agreement exceeding $100,000 and for an award of a Federal loan or a commitment providing
for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan exceeding $150,000.
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreements
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
(1) No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any
agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any
Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal
contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the
undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, ‘‘Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,’’ in accordance with its instructions.
(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts
under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for
making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less
than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
Certification Regarding Nondiscrimination
By electronically signing the NSF Proposal Cover Sheet, the Authorized Organizational Representative is providing the Certification Regarding
Nondiscrimination contained in Exhibit II-6 of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Certification Regarding Flood Hazard Insurance
Two sections of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 USC §4012a and §4106) bar Federal agencies from giving financial assistance for acquisition or
construction purposes in any area identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as having special flood hazards unless the:
(1) community in which that area is located participates in the national flood insurance program; and
(2) building (and any related equipment) is covered by adequate flood insurance.
By electronically signing the NSF Proposal Cover Sheet, the Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual Applicant located in FEMA-designated special flood hazard areas is
certifying that adequate flood insurance has been or will be obtained in the following situations:
(1) for NSF grants for the construction of a building or facility, regardless of the dollar amount of the grant; and
(2) for other NSF Grants when more than $25,000 has been budgeted in the proposal for repair, alteration or improvement (construction) of a building or facility.
Certification Regarding Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)
(This certification is not applicable to proposals for conferences, symposia, and workshops.)
By electronically signing the NSF Proposal Cover Sheet, the Authorized Organizational Representative of the applicant institution is certifying that, in accordance with the NSF Proposal
& Award Policies & Procedures Guide, Part II, Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter IV.B., the institution has a plan in place to provide appropriate training and oversight in the
responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates, graduate students and postdoctoral researchers who will be supported by NSF to conduct research.
The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in any award documents for all subawards at all tiers.
AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
SIGNATURE
DATE
NAME
Diane E Nance
TELEPHONE NUMBER
614-823-1846
Electronic Signature
ELECTRONIC MAIL ADDRESS
Nov 7 2011 10:53AM
FAX NUMBER
dnance@otterbein.edu
614-823-3101
fm1207rrs-07
* EAGER - EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research
** RAPID - Grants for Rapid Response Research
Page 2 of 2
Summary
Otterbein University will conduct a self-assessment that will identify barriers to equitable
employment policies and practices for women faculty in STEM disciplines. As a primarily undergraduate
institution (PUI), we are uniquely positioned to conduct this assessment from a largely underappreciated
perspective. While stereotypes, bias, and work-life imbalances persist at both primarily undergraduate and
large research intensive schools, STEM women at small schools also face a unique set of unexamined
challenges. In conducting our assessment, we will raise the profile of these issues on campus and develop
recommendations and policies that serve as a model for other small liberal arts and comprehensive
institutions.
Our assessment will focus on four main categories: (1) Bias and Climate, (2) Service Obligations,
(3) Work-Life Balance, and (4) Invisible Women and Dual-Career Couples. We define invisible women
as those who serve in part-time, adjunct or lecturer positions and who are not well integrated into
departments. We suspect that women are more likely to be put in such positions because of work-life
balance issues or because they are the trailing spouse in a dual-career couple. We are particularly
interested in the invisible women component of the study because very little, if any, existing research
addresses their plight. To conduct our investigation, we will (1) compile data from pre-existing sources on
campus; (2) conduct surveys and interviews and convene focus groups and professional learning
communities; and (3) visit ADVANCE-funded institutions.
Intellectual Merit
The proposed project is critical to advancing knowledge of issues faced by STEM women
because of its focus on two often-ignored populations—invisible women and primarily undergraduate
institutions (PUIs). Although some literature on STEM women at large research universities provides a
starting point for institutional change at PUIs, the issues that women at smaller schools face vary greatly
from those at larger schools because of considerable differences in their focus on service, teaching, and
scholarship. To ensure we are as successful as possible, we take an evidenced-based approach by
grounding our project in the social scientific literature on stereotyping, implicit bias, motherhood
penalties, and work-life balance. With a long history of posing important human and political questions,
and with a proven set of methods for their exploration, the social sciences provide a well-established
model both for collecting data that can deepen our understanding of corrosive attitudes and behavior and
for using such understanding to effect positive change. By adopting this perspective, we maximize the
likelihood that we will develop informative recommendations and begin to implement positive change in
lives of STEM women at Otterbein and beyond.
Broader Impacts
The broader impact we seek to make is to increase representation of and equality for women in
STEM disciplines. The most noteworthy way in which our project will have an impact is by contributing
to knowledge on two populations that have been virtually ignored by the literature: (1) “invisible
women,” who serve in part-time, adjunct, lecturer, or contingent positions, and (2) female STEM faculty
at primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs). Finding ways to increase the numbers of successful,
satisfied female scientists working in tenure-track or other, alternatively imagined positions, will ensure
the presence of strong role models for young STEM female students, who may otherwise have difficulty
imagining themselves as scientists. Furthermore, our assessments and analyses will serve other similarlysized institutions as well, since we will disseminate through our ADVANCE website and other outreach
efforts. We see our project as having an important regional—and perhaps even national—impact in light
of our two unique focal points. With at least 10 small institutions within an hour’s drive of our campus,
we will host a conference in which faculty and administrators from these schools will be invited to learn
about our findings, share their own thoughts and experiences, and discuss the steps necessary for the
execution of systemic change we hope to have modeled. To reach an even wider audience, we will further
disseminate our findings via a session or symposium at a joint meeting of the Association of American
Colleges and Universities and the American Conference of Academic Deans.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
For font size and page formatting specifications, see GPG section II.B.2.
Total No. of
Pages
Page No.*
(Optional)*
Cover Sheet for Proposal to the National Science Foundation
Project Summary
(not to exceed 1 page)
1
Table of Contents
1
Project Description (Including Results from Prior
NSF Support) (not to exceed 15 pages) (Exceed only if allowed by a
specific program announcement/solicitation or if approved in
advance by the appropriate NSF Assistant Director or designee)
15
References Cited
10
Biographical Sketches
(Not to exceed 2 pages each)
Budget
10
6
(Plus up to 3 pages of budget justification)
Current and Pending Support
5
Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources
2
Special Information/Supplementary Documents
(Data Management Plan, Mentoring Plan
and Other Supplementary Documents)
2
Appendix (List below. )
(Include only if allowed by a specific program announcement/
solicitation or if approved in advance by the appropriate NSF
Assistant Director or designee)
Appendix Items:
*Proposers may select any numbering mechanism for the proposal. The entire proposal however, must be paginated.
Complete both columns only if the proposal is numbered consecutively.
Equity through Inquiry—1
Equity through Inquiry: ADVANCE at Otterbein University
Otterbein University requests $199,742 over a two-year period to conduct a self-assessment that
will identify barriers to equitable employment policies and practices for women faculty in STEM
disciplines. As a primarily undergraduate institution (PUI), we are uniquely positioned to conduct this
assessment from a largely underappreciated perspective (Karukstis, 2009). While stereotypes, bias, and
work-life imbalances persist at both primarily undergraduate and large, research-intensive schools, STEM
women at small schools also face a unique set of unexamined challenges. In conducting our assessment,
we will raise the profile of these issues on campus and develop recommendations and policies to serve as
a model for other PUIs.
Our assessment will focus on four main categories: (1) Bias and Climate, (2) Service Obligations,
(3) Work-Life Balance, and (4) Invisible Women and Dual-Career Couples. We define invisible women
as those who serve in part-time, adjunct or lecturer positions, and are not well integrated into departments.
We suspect these women are typically pushed into their positions because of work-life balance issues or
because they are the trailing spouse in a dual-career couple. We are particularly interested in the invisible
women component of the study because very little, if any, existing research addresses their plight.
To conduct our investigation, we will (1) compile data from existing sources on campus; (2)
conduct surveys, interviews, focus groups, and professional learning communities; and (3) visit
ADVANCE-funded institutions. Funding from the IT Catalyst grant will provide the resources required
for our research, including travel to ADVANCE-funded institutions and compensation for project
participants. Critical to our success is a guarantee from the Otterbein administration to release principal
investigators from a full slate of institutional responsibilities, so that they have adequate time to manage
and execute the project effectively.
Background
The Institution
Otterbein University is a leading comprehensive institution that acknowledges the liberal arts as
the broad base of all learning. There are approximately 3,000 students at Otterbein, 60% of whom are
women, and 35% of whom are first-generation college students. STEM departments and programs in
NSF-support fields include Biology & Earth Sciences, Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Chemistry,
Mathematical Sciences, Physics, Psychology, Political Science, Economics and Sociology &
Anthropology. We have 179 full-time faculty members, 26% of whom are in STEM disciplines.
Otterbein is an institution in transition. In implementing our 2007 Strategic Plan, the university
undertook a 20 million dollar renovation of the Science Center, entirely transformed the General
Education curriculum, moved from a quarter to a semester calendar, and changed its name from college to
university. In 2009, our President retired after 25 years, and Otterbein welcomed its first female President,
Dr. Kathy Krendl. In her first two years, Dr. Krendl has led a sweeping change in administration, hiring
three female vice presidents (Academic Affairs, Business Affairs, and Advancement), replacing the
predominantly male former administration. Dr. Krendl’s commitment to improve women’s professional
pathways by example has led to the development of leadership programs for school-aged girls, university
students, and established women in the business community. For example, despite her full schedule, she
personally teaches a first-year seminar course on Women and Leadership for incoming female students.
She acknowledges that, although Otterbein employs a dynamic, productive group of women scientists,
full-time women faculty still lag behind men in rank and tenure-track assignments at Otterbein. This grant
represents another important step in the President’s drive to move Otterbein toward true gender equality.
Increases in women’s leadership opportunities might be the first steps to changing the culture of
the university, but only thoughtful, evidence-based plans championed by the Board of Trustees will
achieve long-lasting systemic efforts in recruiting women in the sciences and providing them essential
foundational support. Data collection needs to move from the anecdotal to the systematic to catalyze a
productive dialogue among faculty, Trustees, Vice Presidents, and the President of the Institution. In a
time of dwindling resources, however, we lack the human and financial resources required for the first
steps. As a tuition-driven school Otterbein has suffered the effects of the global recession and double-digit
Midwestern unemployment rates. Recent declines in enrollment led to salary and hiring freezes, cuts to
retirement benefits, and across the board cuts in discretionary budgets. Although we collect or can easily
retrieve basic data such as the percentage of women faculty in the STEM departments and programs,
these data exist in different places in the institution. Thus, the data presented here are neither deep nor
systematic. Support from the ADVANCE program will enable the focused, diagnostic, and strategic
conversations required for institutional transformation.
Female STEM faculty at Otterbein
Otterbein STEM women are a dynamic group of dedicated scientists who lead active academic
lives. They are talented teachers and active scholars who serve as important role models for our female
students. An informal inquiry to the University Center for Teaching and Learning revealed that 100% of
female STEM faculty have attended professional development opportunities offered by the center. Female
psychologists have won the New Teacher of the Year award two of the last three years, and alumni cite
mentorship by women biologists as instrumental in their own development as scientists (Otterbein
University, n.d.; 2007)
Much of the scientific activity on campus owes thanks to the efforts of Otterbein women. In
recent years, Biology and Chemistry women have secured and administered two three-year grants from
the Merck ·AAAS Undergraduate Science Research Program to support interdisciplinary research
between the Biology & Earth Science and Chemistry Departments. Additionally, a female chemist was
instrumental in launching our NSF S-STEM funded Cardinal Science Scholars Program, designed to
recruit women and minority students into our Chemistry and Physics programs. Female scientists also
maintain active research labs and regularly attend local, regional and national conferences with students
and publish in peer-reviewed journals (albeit at a lower frequency than their counterparts at larger
research universities). With funding from two NSF Research Opportunity Awards, a biologist spent the
last three summers conducting research at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama. A
second biologist is particularly adept at mentoring students at obtaining funding, and her students have
accumulated an impressive list of awards. Additionally, a chemist recently secured funding from the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, and women psychologists have received grants from the
Ohio Commission on Minority Health and the U.S. Army Research Institute.
Preliminary Data
Women are a productive component of Otterbein STEM departments. Their productivity has
tempered any significant institutional review of anecdotal evidence that suggests some gender-based
discrepancies exist in hiring, promotion, and the use of institutional resources. The presence of female
STEM faculty demonstrates Otterbein’s commitment, but is no substitute for the kind of comprehensive
inquiry and institutional action this NSF grant will catalyze. Our initial investigations reveal concerning
patterns related to the status of women scientists at Otterbein. Deliberate discrimination may not be
occurring, so we need to investigate the potential underlying factors behind this differential resource
allocation. We recognize that these initial patterns should be viewed cautiously because our institutional
size means that we are necessarily analyzing smaller than desired samples. For this reason, when sample
sizes are low, we present both percentages and raw numbers. We recognize that a proper analysis requires
more sophisticated techniques, such as a multiple regression model that incorporates other important
variables, including gender, experience, and field of study (Travis et al., 2009). Per NSF guidelines, we
sometimes separate traditional STEM departments from the Social and Behavioral Science (SBS)
Departments. Outside of this section, all references to STEM include SBS.
Percent Women (%)
At Otterbein, women hold approximately
60% of full-time faculty positions in non-STEM
disciplines, whereas they hold only 40% of
STEM/SBS positions (28% of STEM only). These
numbers contrast sharply with the student body
where nearly 60% of STEM/SBS majors are women
(Fig. 1). The absolute number of STEM/SBS women
has remained constant from 2007 to 2011, with the
increase in percent of women faculty (35 to 40%)
due to a reduction in male faculty members rather
than an increase in the number of women.
Interestingly, the gender bias in percent women only
Fig. 1. Percent female faculty and students in
afflicts full-time faculty; women fill 52% of all partSTEM/SBS and non-STEM disciplines at Otterbein
time STEM/SBS positions. Significant gender
over the past five years.
disparities are also apparent when comparing
STEM/SBS and non-STEM faculty positions by rank. Within non-STEM disciplines, the percentage of
female assistant, associate, and full professors varies
100
STEM
7:1
between 66, 70, and 50%, respectively (Fig. 2). That
90
non-STEM
same comparison within STEM/SBS disciplines
80
30:13
21:11
70
indicates a steady decline with rank from 55 to 38 to
60
6:5
23%. Of the five women full professors, 3 are in
22:22
50
psychology and 1 is in each of Mathematics and
3:5
40
Biology & Earth Science (Table 1). There are no
30
5:17
female full professors in Chemistry, and no women
20
at all in Physics or Economics.
10
0:2
STEM/SBS women are also largely absent
0
from important leadership roles at the University.
Senior Instructor
Assistant
Associate
Professor
Professor
Professor
Four women from Psychology and Sociology &
Figure 2. Percent female faculty in STEM/SBS and
Anthropology serve as either department chairs or
non-STEM disciplines as a function of rank. Numbers
program directors (Honors program and Senior
above bars are number of women : men.
Year Experience program), and our new Provost is
a psychologist. Two other women (both in behavioral and social science) also serve on promotion and
tenure committees at different levels, and a chemist currently serves on the Faculty Council Executive
Committee. However, STEM/SBS women are currently absent from other prominent roles, including
those of Center Directors, Deans, Associate Deans, and Vice Presidents. One STEM woman did serve as
Dean of Special Programs and Interim Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs for one year, but
she has since left the university.
Table 1. Number and percent of female faculty in STEM and SBS departments as a function of rank.
Number of Women : Men
% Women
Assistant
Associate
Full
Assistant
Associate
Full
STEM
Bio. & Earth Science
2:1
1:0
1:4
67
100
20
Chemistry
1:0
1:1
0:2
100
50
0
Physics
0:1
0:2
0:0
0
0
0
Math
1:1
0:2
1:6
50
0
14
SBS
Economics
0:0
0:0
0:2
----0
Political Science
0:1
1:1
0:0
0
50
--Psychology
2:0
0:0
3:2
100
--60
Soc. & Anthropology
2:0
1:0
0:0
100
100
---
Table 2. Otterbein STEM and SBS Faculty Salary
by Sex and Rank.
Gender disparities are also revealed in a simple
examination of salary. Men make more than
Women
Men
their female counterparts at all levels, a gap
STEM
particularly pronounced at higher ranks (Table
Assistant Professor
$50,352
$50,793
2). Although the pattern holds for both STEM
Associate Professor
$56,622
$57,349
and SBS, the gap is larger in SBS. In some
Professor
$68,250
$71,291
cases, gender-based discrepancies become more
SBS
prominent at the specific departmental level. For
Assistant Professor
$49,215
$50,167
example, STEM men make $441 more per year
Associate Professor
$57,905
$61,765
than women overall. However, in one of our
Professor
$66,743
$76,477
larger departments, Biology and Earth Science,
male assistant and full professors earn $2,032 and $3,362 more than their female counterparts,
respectively.
Our preliminary data suggest a gender-biased distribution of resources to faculty. For example, in
the past five years, there were 14 new STEM/SBS hires. Within Biology, Chemistry, and Physics, men
received higher average start-up packages than women in those same departments ($15,846 vs. $12,667).
Women in Social and Behavioral Sciences received less funding ($7,375); no men were hired in that area
during that time period. Differences may exist in the extent to which STEM/SBS women apply for
internal research funds. From 2003-2005, only one grant out of 25 was awarded to a STEM/SBS woman,
while 12 were awarded to STEM/SBS men. Support from an IT catalyst grant will allow us to conduct an
in-depth analysis of these data (including a longer timespan) and expand the analysis to include patterns
in the distribution of conference travel and sabbatical funds.
Female scientists serve as valued mentors for both junior faculty and students. At Otterbein, we
suspect that women bear a heavier burden in this area than men. In our formal mentoring program, new
women faculty typically request female mentors. Because women represent a lower percentage of
STEM/SBS faculty, there are fewer available female mentors. In an effort not to overburden senior STEM
women, female scientists may be assigned non-STEM mentors. While these relationships can be highly
successful, issues often emerge that are best discussed with other STEM women, resulting in more
informal mentoring by senior STEM faculty. Just as female faculty look to other women as mentors, so
do female students. Nearly 60% of Otterbein STEM/SBS students are women, whereas only 40% of
STEM faculty are women, resulting in the potential for increased advising loads. As part of our selfexamination, we plan to analyze the mentoring and advising load of Otterbein women over the last five
years.
We currently lack the data necessary to examine other equity issues. For instance, we currently
have no data regarding hiring, retention, and attrition of faculty. This project will allow us to collect,
maintain and analyze appropriate data and incorporate it as standard practice for the institution. Data
collection initiatives for this project are outlined in each of the sections below and the summary table.
STEM Women at Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs)
Although most science faculty are educated at research institutions, few will actually work there.
The majority will take jobs at PUIs (Gaff & Lambert, 1996), which pose special challenges to women
scientists. Unfortunately, after being trained at a research institution, there is often a negative stigma
associated with choosing a PUI, which may result in a lack of support from mentors and colleagues
(Webb, 2008). In terms of representation of women in STEM fields, these schools mirror the patterns at
research universities. In fact, the percentage of women STEM senior faculty at small institutions is
increasing much more slowly than it is at research institutions, leading to a call for more research on
women scientists at small institutions (Karukstis, 2009).
Many women actively seek smaller, PUIs because of either a passion for teaching and working
closely with undergraduates or because they see it as an opportunity to maintain better work-life balance
(Oberst, 2010). A large survey of Ph.D. students found that 73% of women thought that teaching-
intensive institutions were the most family-friendly choice, a belief that study author Mary Ann Mason
calls “wishful thinking” (Jaschik, 2009). Female scientists who have primarily experienced research
institutions are usually unaware of the wide variety of roles they will occupy, particularly if they find
themselves at this type of institution because of current job availability or because they are trailing
spouses seeking work within a limited geographic area. The NSF-funded Preparing Future Faculty
program was one attempt to bridge this gap by having Ph.D. students mentored by faculty at teaching
colleges (Pruitt-Logan et al., 2002).
At PUIs, all faculty are expected to be excellent teachers, and to teach a wide variety of classes
both within and outside their discipline. Faculty are also expected to take an active role with service to
both institution and students. Effective undergraduate research mentoring can be much more labor
intensive than graduate student or postdoc advising, and it produces a slower return in terms of scholarly
output. Barriers to scholarly productivity include the isolation that many scientists experience at small
institutions because there is typically only one of any given kind of scientist (Oberst, 2010). It can also be
challenging to produce collaborate research with scientists outside the university because of limited travel
funds. As part of this project, we plan to investigate the extent to which women faculty have redressed
this isolation by forging relationships with researchers at other institutions. We plan to identify factors
that both facilitate and inhibit such collaborations based on the inspiring work reported by the
ADVANCE grant “Collaborative Research for Horizontal Mentoring Alliances” (Karukstis, 2009).
Smaller institutions also are more likely to suffer from “mission drift,” leading to changing and
unclear expectations for faculty (Wolf-Wendel & Ward, 2006). Performance criteria are less clear for
junior faculty at these schools, and tenure decisions may seem more linked to non-performance factors
(Trower & Bleak, 2004). There have been few projects looking at the representation and development of
STEM faculty at smaller institutions; one of the broader impacts of this project is to contribute to the
knowledge base on issues specific to women at PUIs and disseminate that information to similar
institutions.
Biases and Climate
Literature
An expansive literature documents the small and large ways in which women professionals face
more challenges than men. Professional women are more likely to be single, less likely to have children,
and more likely to have token status in the upper echelons of business and science (Valian, 1999,
Livingston & Kohn, 2010). In the 2010 report Why So Few?, commissioned by the AAUW, several
disquieting, irrefutable facts emerge. Women are underrepresented as professors in STEM fields relative
to men. Women faculty are less likely to have tenure-track jobs, less likely to be satisfied with their jobs,
and less likely to become full professors than their male colleagues. The preliminary data presented above
suggest Otterbein is not an exception to this pattern. Stereotypes and biases permeate the work
environment of STEM women and influence interactions with both their male and female colleagues as
well as students.
Many gender discrepancies in science can be attributed to some form of sexism, in which men
enjoy privileges which women do not receive. This contributes to the “chilly climate” in which it is more
challenging for women to work (Settles et al., 2006). One manifestation of the chilly climate is
differential standards for evaluating men and women (Biernat & Kobrynowicz, 1997), which may emerge
in hiring, tenure and promotion decisions (Steinpreis, 1999), and student evaluations. Student evaluations
represent an important part of the review process at PUIs and heavily impact tenure and promotion
decisions (Wright, 2006). Students reward female faculty for adhering to expected nurturing gender roles
but punish them for seeming less knowledgeable, whereas male faculty receive more latitude (Bachen, et
al., 1999; Freeman, 1994). Benevolent sexism, in which there is high regard for women as long as they do
not deviate from their prescribed roles (e.g., stay-at-home mother) has a potent effect on perceptions of
female scientists when they are undeniably occupying the mother role, such as when pregnant or
breastfeeding (Glick & Fiske, 1996; Kilian & Rudman, 1998; Acker, 2009; Masser, Grass, & Nesic,
2007).
The content of the female stereotype also dictates how they should act. Women are expected to be
warm and nurturing, whereas men are expected to be competent and assertive (Cuddy et al., 2008). In
academe, this caretaking role includes serving as a mentor, fulfilling requests to serve on ad-hoc
committees, and providing social support to colleagues. Unfortunately, behaving communally may be
seen as maternal rather than communitarian, and diminish perceived competence (Williams, 2005).
Female junior faculty are often advised to limit their service commitments and time with students. This
advice might backfire, however, because women who violate their expected gender roles tend to be
disregarded, disliked, and distrusted (Phelan et al., 2008; Cuddy et al., 2004). Women who demonstrate
competence and assertiveness are typically disliked because they fail to fulfill the communal nature of the
stereotype, and this has the potential to negatively impact one’s career (Fiske, et. al., 1991; Heilman et al.,
2004; Heilman & Okimoto, 2007, Phelan et al., 2008). Unfortunately, the content of the female stereotype
is not consonant with the qualities deemed necessary for professional success (Diekman et.al 2010).
Besides the general gender stereotype of women as warm and nurturing, there are particular variants
based on the individual woman. These include the double burden visited upon minority women, who must
contend with additional ethnic stereotypes (Essien, 1997), and with the specific subtype of women as
mothers. The costs of the stereotypical lens through which professional mothers are viewed are both
multiple and material. These costs include lower pay, less restricted opportunities for advancement, and
inaccurate judgments of motivation, dedication, and competence (Crosby et al., 2004; Mason & Goulden,
2002; 2004; Williams, 2004; 2005). This so-called “maternal wall” occurs when women become mothers,
and evaluations of their competence decreases along with their potential for hiring and promotion (Correll
et al., 2007).
STEM women are also significantly disadvantaged by unconscious or implicit biases. The most
egalitarian, well-intentioned person knows the cultural stereotype of women (e.g., Devine, 1989), and
might be influenced by it despite personal and situational factors that discourage its application (Nelson,
Acker, & Manis, 1996). Extensive research, including experimental demonstrations using the Implicit
Association Task (IAT), reveals the surprising pull of unconscious stereotypic beliefs that associate men
with science (Nosek et al., 2002a). The fact that such biases operate at an automatic level does not mean
they cannot be modified (Blair, 2002), but it does mean attention must be paid to these underground
processes, and focused effort expended to change them. For instance, examples of female leaders as rolemodels change the automatic association of men with leadership (Dasgupta & Asgari, 2004). Similarly we
could expect examples of female science professors should change the association of men with science
for our students.
Stereotypes and biases also impact how women see themselves. With a strong association
between men and science, it may be more difficult for women to incorporate “scientist” as part of their
personal identity (Cheryan et al., in press; Eccles, 1987; Nosek et al., 2002b). Women scientists are wellaware of cultural stereotypes, and of their tenuous position in academic science. This may lead to
stereotype threat, whereby women become so concerned with not fulfilling a stereotype that they
inadvertently do so because their anxiety undermines their performance (Steele, 1997). Such is the
corrosive effect of entrenched stereotypes, leading those captured by them to have to constantly calculate
how particular actions might be construed by colleagues. This in turn leads to a practice of bias avoidance
by women scientists, and the suppression of anything consistent with the stereotype, such as expressing
emotions or discussing children (Drago et al., 2006). Importantly, this means that these processes
consume an enormous amount of energy that male scientists do not have to expend. Often women are
aware of general impact of stereotypes and biases but they do not recognize their effects on their own
career. This phenomenon of “personal/group discrimination discrepancy” results from motivational and
cognitive biases that protect one’s esteem and happiness in the face of discrimination. The collection of
aggregate data is therefore critical as we cannot rely on individuals to perceive the degree to which they
are discriminated against (Crosby & Clayton, 2001). Furthermore, we can educate female faculty
members about research on stereotypes so they can strategically minimize the effect of gender stereotypes
and prescriptive gender norms. This, however, is only a stopgap measure; we should work to change the
system, not the women (Cress & Hart, 2009).
Otterbein Experience
The prevalence of bias and stereotypes at Otterbein is unknown, although we expect it will
resemble national data. Anecdotally, women report that they feel perceived differently from men by
students in the classroom and worry that this impacts their course evaluations and potential for promotion
and tenure. Women may also be disadvantaged at Otterbein by an unawareness of stereotypes and biases
at work. For example, in preliminary conversations related to this proposal, many women discounted the
possibility that gender-based differences existed in salary or resources. The preliminary data were eye
opening and energized the development of this proposal. For the past 15 years, we have had a single
female scientist of color. It is impossible to separate the effects of race and gender from those of the
individual person, but it is crucial to learn why recruitment has lagged so seriously. This suggests that we
also need to look at the impact of racial biases and stereotypes on our campus. We do not currently have
any baseline climate or faculty job satisfaction data at Otterbein.
Assessment
We will take a comprehensive approach to assess the prevalence and impact of gender stereotypes
and biases, based on practices from other ADVANCE institutions, and the NSF-Advance IT Indicators
toolkit.
1. Contract The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) to survey all
tenure-track faculty to assess campus climate and perceptions.
2. Expand our preliminary data as it relates to numbers of women in STEM fields, salary and
benefits, and use of campus resources (e.g., internal grants) and conduct a more sophisticated
analysis of these data.
3. Interview women who have left the faculty over the last 10 years.
4. Examine policies used to evaluate faculty (e.g., tenure and promotions documents) and search
committee materials for transparency and clarity, both of which reduce the impact of stereotypes.
5. Analyze STEM applicant pools and hiring decisions over the last 5 years with regard to gender
and race.
6. Follow the model of other ADVANCE grantees (e.g., University of Miami, Council of Colleges
of Arts and Sciences) and use the Gender Implicit Association Task (IAT) on campus—first as a
diagnostic tool for individuals, and second, as a starting point for a Professional Learning
Community devoted to examining bias and stereotypes about gender.
7. Facilitate discussion and/or a focus group on stereotyping following self-diagnosis. Permission
will be sought to transcribe these conversations anonymously to examine the perceptions of
implicit stereotyping on campus.
Potential Solutions
All faculty participants will be invited to join Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) focused
on stereotyping and bias. PLCs are inquiry groups of 5-12 people who meet bi-monthly to learn about a
topic of shared interest related to teaching and learning in a collegial and supportive context. Since 2003,
Otterbein’s Center for Teaching and Learning has sponsored 25 PLCs on a wide variety of topics (e.g.,
undergraduate research, scholarship of teaching and learning, first-generation students, issues of diversity
in teaching and learning). PLCS are well-established and highly successful at Otterbein, and are a natural
fit for our project. A stereotyping and bias PLC for faculty will be facilitated by Dr. Acker, and a second
PLC for administrators will be facilitated by Program Coordinator, Dr. Garrett Mills.
Although many ADVANCE institutions have examined factors of implicit stereotyping and
work-life balance issues for mothers, little effort has focused on identifying and resolving stereotypes of
mothers. Dr. Acker has a thesis student developing an IAT that looks at implicit perceptions of
motherhood using the program DirectRT. Continued development of this tool and its administration to
members of the university community will allow us to examine biases and develop potential solutions.
We will also explore the potential use of materials developed at other ADVANCE institutions to
demonstrate biases in hiring and promotion to raise awareness of best evaluation practices (ADEPT,
2011; Gender Bias Bingo 2001). The WAGES-academic simulation which increases knowledge of the
cumulative effect of biases in the academic workplace may be particularly useful (Shields, Zawadzki, &
Johnson, 2011). Finally, the review of many ADVANCE institutions’ websites (e.g., University of
Michigan, University of Miami, and University of Missouri) has convinced us of the viability of
interactive theatre as a means to raise awareness and initiate discussions about the impact of subtle biases
and stereotypes. Otterbein has a nationally recognized theater program, making this a feasible,
inexpensive option to consider.
Service Obligations
Literature
Although faculty at all institutions engage in service work, there is an increased emphasis on such
work at PUIs. There are fewer people to share the work, and often more emphasis on shared governance
(Pruitt-Logan et al., 2002). Faculty must also do service to students in the form of academic advising and
research mentoring. In the process, they are expected to develop meaningful relationships. This leads to
many more co-curricular after-hours obligations in an effort to create a “family” on campus. However, the
after-hours and weekend time comes at the expense of individuals’ families (Wolf-Wendel & Ward,
2006). Although there are increased expectations for service, there are typically few, if any, increased
rewards.
Anecdotally, many women at Otterbein feel they carry more than their share of the service load,
and research indicates this is common. At one institution, women spent 220 hours more per year on
teaching, mentoring, and service than male faculty, and the gap was even wider between men and women
in STEM disciplines (Misra et al., 2011). Men were also more likely to engage in service to their
discipline, which is more prestigious (e.g., editorial boards), whereas women’s service was more likely to
be to their university. Women spend more time mentoring, and doing lower-level teaching (Park, 1996).
This gendered pattern of service work is not by choice; most women indicated they would prefer to spend
their time differently (Misra et al., 2011). However, limiting their commitments carries a cost in that it
places women at odds with the stereotypic demand that they be helpful and communal. Advising
individual women on how to handle such requests ignores the more pervasive problem of the fair
distribution of service and emphasizes individual responsibility over the need for collective change at the
university (Park, 1996). The desire to include underrepresented groups of women (e.g., minority faculty;
STEM faculty) on every committee exacerbates this problem, in that it increases the load
disproportionately on a group that is small by definition. Additionally, committee meetings and functions
are often squeezed in at the beginning and end of the workday, making it difficult for those with children
to participate due to childcare hour limitations. Many single female faculty report feeling overburdened
with requests to do things at such times to support those with children (Williams, 2010). This gendered
pattern of service results in women with and without children doing more than men, and in women
becoming polarized based on their parental status.
Although Otterbein is proud of its heritage of shared governance, there are few formal policies
outlining the amount and kind of service that is expected and its relationship to tenure and promotion. It is
an open question as to whether women perform more service than their male colleagues. Otterbein STEM
women occupy fewer leadership positions on campus. To understand these issues at a deeper level, we
propose to investigate the number and types of service commitments that women have carried over the
last 5-10 years. This will be a time-consuming task because it involves an audit of records that were not
designed for this purpose.
Assessment
Our assessment of service obligations undertaken by STEM women will determine the type and
amount of service done and will involve comparisons across groups, such as women versus men. Specific
assessments will include:
1. Ask female and male faculty members to complete time-use diaries for one week. Because this
task is time-consuming, we will provide an incentive.
2. Analysis of the types of teaching done by women and men, including the number of new
preparations each year, laboratory sections taught, lower and upper level courses taught, as well
as course scheduling (e.g., propitious times).
3. Audit service-related policies on campus, both at the departmental and institutional levels.
4. Quantify service obligations over the past 5 years in the following areas: committee and task
force membership and leadership; general participation in governance; number of advisees;
number of theses and distinction projects supervised; and number of students mentored in
scholarship in other ways (e.g., research assistants in laboratories).
5. Conduct interviews with females in leadership positions, with a focus on identification and
examination of pathways to leadership.
Potential Solutions
Based on our assessment findings, we will begin to work towards equalizing service levels and
bringing clarity to service expectations for all faculty on campus. For example, we will develop
institutional and departmental service statements that provide clear guidelines for service expectations,
following the process we recently completed for scholarship expectations and modeled on the University
of Arizona ADVANCE materials. Intervention at the chair level can be an effective way to facilitate
equity in the responsibilities expected of male and female faculty (Baker & Zey-Ferrell, 1982; Ward &
Wolf-Wendel, 2007). Developing a set of shared expectations within departments that is informed by data
on current obligations can help maintain an equitable focus. Other potential solutions include having the
dean consult with chairs on first-year faculty teaching schedules and reducing obligations by assessing
overall college service loads. We will also specifically look at ways to increase leadership of female
STEM faculty. In particular, based on work at other ADVANCE funded institutions, we will explore the
concept of horizontal mentoring between senior women across schools (Karukstis, 2010).
Finding Balance
Literature
A common theme with female academics is the challenge of balancing the multiple commitments
of teaching, research, and service, with personal lives. The career of a science professor is simultaneously
flexible and never-ending (Auriemma & Klein, 2010). Although one has the ability to leave work to care
for an ill child, the job never really leaves the person (Fothergill & Feltey, 2003). Once at home, women
are more likely to do the work needed to maintain a home and family. For single STEM women there is
no one else at home to cook dinner, do laundry and do the mundane activities of daily life; thus there is a
disproportionate burden compared to those who are partnered. On the other hand, being partnered does
not help as much as it ought too. Professional women, including scientists, typically do significantly more
housework than men (Schiebinger & Gilmartin, 2010, Laster, 2010). Female scientists spend 100 hours
per week in combined work and household responsibilities as compared to 86 for male scientists (Mason
et al., 2010). The model of academic careers was built during a time when women were not only missing
from the work place, but were at home allowing men to devote all of their energy to work. The ideal
academic is one that is married to his or her work (Williams, 2000). This is antithetical to the notion of
balance, and difficult for many women to maintain.
Although not all women in the United States become mothers, the percentage is high: 80% of all
women, and 73% of women with advanced degrees (Livingston & Kohn, 2010). It is thus critical to the
success of working women to consider issues relevant to motherhood. Academic mothers are twice as
likely to have non-tenure-track, adjunct type positions than academic fathers (Mason & Goulden, 2002).
Mothers have lower salaries and fewer benefits than childless women (the “motherhood penalty”), and
they are more likely to step out of the paid workforce, an immediate financial cost, but also a much
greater financial cost over time (Crittenden, 2001; Chang, 2010). Childbearing and breastfeeding have a
sex-specific impact on women’s careers, and denying this biological reality does a disservice to women
(Kittelstrom, 2006). Having children is often viewed as a lack of commitment to the field (Trower &
Bleak, 2004), despite strong evidence to the contrary (McQuillan et al., 2008). Women who have babies
within 5 years of their doctorate are significantly less likely than men to receive tenure, and over 65% of
women who begin tenure-track jobs childless will remain childless (Mason & Goulden, 2004). Because of
the alignment of biological and academic career clocks, many women will delay childbearing and may
face fertility issues (Dunson et al., 2002; Hewlett et al., 2008). Many faculty women only try to have
babies during the non-teaching season because of the difficulty of balancing a baby with their career
(Wilson, 1999). A significant proportion of female scientists report having fewer children than they
wanted, especially compared to the degree to which male scientists wished for more children (Mason &
Goulden, 2004; Ecklund & Lincoln, 2011). All of these issues make urgent the need for family-friendly
policies and programs at universities.
Family-friendly policies are in fact growing at colleges and universities. For example, 78% of
institutions in one survey offer paid time off for biological mothers. However, only 36% offer paid
paternity leave and only 65% offer tenure clock extensions (CEW, 2007). These policies vary by
institution size, and smaller colleges tend to lag behind in family-friendly policies. For female scientists,
concerns go beyond maternity leave and tenure clocks. Mothers may not be able to work in a lab with
hazardous chemicals while pregnant, or they may have reduced flexibility to travel to remote field sites.
Additionally, lab work may require frequent checks at off-hours, and living organisms need regular care.
Female science professors at PUIs often do all of this work themselves. NSF’s new policy allowing
female scientists to hire people with grant funds to maintain their lab helps alleviate some of these
challenges (Hebel, 2011). However, caution must be taken in implementing family-friendly policies as
women (and men) may fear that there will be repercussions in how they are judged by their colleagues if
they use them (Drago et al., 2006; Valdata, 2005). One must also be sure that family-friendly policies do
not create a “mommy track,” where climate is good, but potential for advancement is not (Gerten, 2011;
King et al., 2009).
Of greatest concern for working mothers is high quality childcare, which is expensive and
difficult to find. Organizations that provide on-site child care centers benefit from increased job
commitment and morale, less absenteeism, and the ability to recruit higher-quality candidates (Connelly
et al., 2004). Unfortunately, on-site daycare is rare, with one study reporting that only 10% of 70
universities surveyed provided on-site care (Gevin, 2005). Other oft-requested, but still uncommon,
benefits are dedicated lactation spaces to support breastfeeding mothers, professional travel childcare
support, and emergency care for sick children (Mason et al., 2005; STEM family travel 2011). Having
such benefits for faculty mothers aids considerably their quest to balance career and family (Comer &
Stites-Doe, 2006).
Otterbein is in the midst of significant change in its mission and programs, and according to
research on institutions in flux (Wolf-Wendel & Ward, 2006), this creates a strain on faculty
responsibilities, particularly in institutions striving to move beyond their original mission (O’Meara &
Bloomgarden, 2010). Consistent with research, Otterbein faculty report that there is more work than hours
in the day. Female STEM faculty are particularly likely to be pressured by increased demands of research,
service and teaching when they are also managing a household or family. Otterbein’s policies toward
work/family balance are mixed. There is currently no formal maternity leave policy beyond what is
covered by short-term disability (six weeks leave) and what is mandated by the federal Family Medical
Leave Act. Arrangements for faculty are typically made with the Dean and vary significantly. The
capriciousness with which maternity leave is handled creates stress and anxiety for pregnant women as
they must strategize how to best negotiate for their leave. Currently, there are no childcare
accommodations on campus, and there are few excellent daycares near the school, causing many faculty
to log significant hours in transport time. There is significant interest in having a child care center on
campus to serve childcare needs and the academic missions of the departments of Psychology, Nursing,
and Education. As part of the 2007 Strategic Planning process, an Enhancing the Work Environment
subcommittee formally proposed revisions of the parental leave policy based on a survey of our peer
institutions and modeled after the University of California Faculty Family Friendly Edge (Mason et al.,
2005). The subcommittee also made recommendations related to domestic partner benefits, elder care,
medical leave, breastfeeding accommodations, and child care. The majority of the recommendations were
not implemented due to cost concerns, but the university has since instituted domestic partner benefits and
a policy allowing one to stop the tenure clock.
Assessment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
To investigate and assess issues related to work/life balance, we will:
Survey all faculty about their thoughts and experiences related to families and children. Because
it is possible to customize the COACHE survey in some ways, we will ask that items be added to
assess these issues. If these types of questions cannot be added, we will create our own measure.
Conduct an audit of current policies (or lack thereof) relevant to work/life balance, such as
maternity, paternity, and adoption leave, day care benefits, health insurance, and guidelines for
promotion and tenure.
Survey all faculty members to investigate regular and occasional (e.g., travel, illness) child care
needs, both past and present.
Conduct focus groups with female STEM faculty regarding how their parenting role relates to
their experience as female scientists, the degree to which they are experiencing work and family
conflict, and potential solutions.
Employ time-use diaries to assess the proportion of time people do spend on aspects of their life,
and host facilitated discussion of the findings and faculty satisfaction.
Potential Solutions
Our assessments will be used to inform data-driven proposals for instituting favorable work-life
balance policies at Otterbein. We will further develop recommendations made during the 2007 Strategic
Planning by consulting policies developed at other ADVANCE institutions and explore new options such
as the University of Rhode Island’s award-winning ADVANCE lactation program. We will explore
additional solutions by considering time periods over which women are evaluated, support for adoption
and fertility treatments, and part-time tenure-track positions (Drago & Williams, 2000; Mason &
Goulden, 2002)
“Invisible Women” and Dual Career Issues
Literature
One specific group of women in STEM and SBS disciplines who face many issues of work-life
balance, but who often go unnoticed, are those in part-time, adjunct, or lecturer positions, referred to by
Mason and Goulden (2004) as the “second-tier” of academia. We refer to these women as “invisible”
because they are often not well integrated into the departments in which they work or into the broader
campus community. They may be pushed into part-time positions by the pressures associated with worklife balance, as described above, or by being a part of a dual-career couple in which both partners seek
employment in academia. Similarly, some women facing these pressures may have left academia
altogether.
Invisible women are not just unseen on campuses; research specifically addressing marginalized
women in academia is almost non-existent, particularly in STEM disciplines. The severity of the problem
has been documented by one study that analyzed data from the Survey of Doctorate Recipients, which
followed the careers of more than 160,000 individuals receiving PhDs, as well as data from over 4,000
individuals at all levels in the University of California system (Mason & Goulden, 2004). Women with
infants were 29% less likely to enter tenure-track positions than those without, and those who were
married were 20% less likely than their single counterparts to enter such positions. Similarly, 50% of all
undergraduate courses are now taught by faculty (often mothers) who are part of the second tier (Mason
& Goulden, 2004). Other women enter jobs on the tenure-track only to find the task of balancing worklife situations either too difficult or unsatisfying. For instance, Fogg (2003) describes the struggles faced
by Karen Gual, an anthropologist at a liberal arts college and single mother. Gual was about to receive
tenure when she left her job because of the difficulties she faced in balancing work and family
obligations. Fogg notes that “Ms. Gual’s story hits home for many career-minded women on the faculty
who want a family.” This anecdote illustrates that work-life balance issues are driving qualified women
from the academy. Reducing teaching positions to part-time is sometimes proposed as a solution to these
types of work-life balance challenges faced by academic women. For instance, Drago and Williams
(2000) propose a half-time tenure-track position available to both men and women for up to 12 years if
they are in the position of taking care of a child or an ill or elderly family member. However, even this
type of alternative represents a difficult professional compromise that women may feel forced to make.
Clearly, more research is needed to determine how many invisible women work in STEM disciplines—
particularly those at institutions focused on undergraduate education, like Otterbein, that are often
excluded from this type of research—and why they have chosen this option.
Some invisible women settle for second-tier jobs or abandon academia altogether because of the
immense challenge of finding academic positions both for themselves and their partner. The “two-body
problem” represents a taxing struggle for many in academia. While the number of faculty with academic
partners has remained stable over the last few decades, universities are increasingly beginning to hire
dual-career couples (Schiebinger, Henderson, & Gilmartin, 2008). Yet, while about 25% of universities
have policies on dual-hiring, only 44% of these are formal, written policies (Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, &
Rice, 2003). In addition, these policies are more common at research universities, leaving couples in
which one or both partners seek careers at PUIs with fewer solutions. In addition, women are
disproportionally affected by dual-career issues compared to their male counterparts. Female scientists are
substantially more likely than males to marry other scientists (83% of female scientists vs. 54% of males
have a partner who is also a scientist; Schiebinger et al., 2008; NSF, 2006). This increases the frequency
with which women in STEM fields must grapple with the challenge of the two-body problem. Despite
societal progress regarding gender equality, 50% of men with academic partners said that their career
takes priority over their spouse’s, while only 20% of women with academic spouses answered in this way
(Schiebinger et al., 2008). Similarly, it is still the case that female academics are more likely to follow
their male partners (Hewlett et al., 2008; Kaplan, 2010). Lingering cultural traditions play a role, but even
when two spouses have attained equal levels of education, males are likely to earn more money. And, in
fact, many men reported privileging their career over that of their academic spouse because of this
discrepancy in income (Schiebinger et al., 2008). Although literature assessing the scope of dual-career
issues is available, more work is required to help PUIs address this problem.
To date, Otterbein has no data related to part-time faculty employees or dual-career couples.
However, we suspect that the problem of “invisible women” may be substantial, given our heavy reliance
on adjunct faculty, particularly in STEM departments (e.g., in Biology & Earth Science, 40% of courses
are taught by either part-time people or faculty overload). Even less is known about the extent to which
individuals in the Otterbein community face dual-career issues, as no formal records have been
maintained. Anecdotally, we know of several women who teach part-time in our STEM departments and
who have spouses in Otterbein tenure-track positions. Several other faculty are currently members of
dual-career couples where both partners have acquired full-time positions, but are in less-than-ideal living
situations (e.g., living in separate residences in different states). In addition, many individuals have
struggled with dual-career issues in the past and have resolved these issues in a variety of ways, from
leaving the academy to finding tenure-track positions in the same geographic area. Clearly, challenges
posed to dual-career couples are a problem at Otterbein; for the university to craft a solution, we must
first document the extent of the problem.
Assessment Plan
To assess the plight of invisible women and the issues faced by dual-career couples, we will:
1. Describe the “invisible women” problem by assessing how many women are in adjunct STEM
positions and documenting their path to this position. All STEM departments will be asked to
submit the names of all non-tenure-track female instructors who have taught in their department
in the previous 5 years. These women will be invited to participate in interviews and/or focus
groups where the following issues (among others) will be discussed: (a) path to adjunct or parttime position, (b) challenges of adjunct or part-time positions, and (c) needed university support
for women in adjunct or part-time STEM positions.
2. Determine how many individuals on campus are currently or have in the past been affected by
dual-career issues by conducting an online survey of all part-time and full-time faculty.
3. Conduct interviews and/or focus groups with Otterbein women who are/have been affected by
dual-career situations (and their partners, when relevant) to determine (a) their current situation
and the path that led them there, (b) the current and past challenges they have faced as a dualcareer couple, and (c) what solutions they or the administration have explored
4. Collect information from universities and colleges who have begun to address these issues. This
will be done by contacting and visiting institutions with ADVANCE funding who addressed
similar issues (e.g., Washington State University’s work/life support initiative, Columbia
University’s financial resources for transitions in caregiving, and The Wright State University
LEADER Consortium’s assistance with dual-career issues) and by compiling information on
formal policies at other universities (e.g., resources as described online by the University of
Michigan, Stanford University, and the Clayman Institute for Gender Research).
Potential Solutions
After our initial assessments are complete, we will form PLCs to further explore the aspects of
invisible women and dual-career issues that have been emphasized by the women at Otterbein. These
PLCs will be comprised at least in part of individuals who have experience with the challenges at hand.
Meetings will likely involve discussion of relevant literature, Otterbein assessment results, personal
experiences, and development of formal recommendations for the university. As with the other topics we
will assess, the information we gain on invisible STEM women and dual-career couples will be used to
formulate recommendations which will be disseminated to administrators and other interested parties.
Overall Plan and Personnel Responsibilities
We have developed an ambitious, comprehensive two-year plan to achieve our project objectives
(Table 3). To ensure that we have the time, expertise, and resources to successfully implement our plan
and to initiate meaningful change at Otterbein, we have established four tiers of support. First, the five coPIs together will lead the group, provide oversight, travel to peer institutions, and communicate findings
to the university community. In addition, the three co-PIs who will be primarily responsible for
implementing and managing assessments, Drs. Acker, Bouchard, and Pempek, will share primary
responsibility for developing assessment instruments, overseeing data collection, facilitating focus groups
and interviews, conducting data analysis, interpreting data, developing reports and other materials to
disseminate findings, and ensuring that faculty are aware of and invested in the efforts of the ADVANCE
team. These individuals will each be paid one month of summer salary and will receive release time from
institutional responsibilities to ensure sufficient time to execute the project. The co-PIs who also serve as
Deans, Drs. Eisenstein and Fatherly, will be instrumental in disseminating results, developing
recommendations, and ensuring that the administration is invested in implementing change.
Second, an interdisciplinary group of 14 faculty members will serve as the Research Advisory
Committee. This group, which represents diversity in rank (pre-tenure, tenured, adjunct), age, discipline,
and gender, will meet monthly to help launch assessments, discuss results, and develop implementation
plans. Because of the large scope of this project, this group will be divided into subcommittees such that
each committee will be responsible for one of the four major areas of our assessment: biases, service,
balance, and invisible women. This will allow each member to participate in ways that incorporate his or
her unique strengths and interests and make use of relevant personal experiences. Co-PIs will lead each
subcommittee so that continuity is maintained.
Third, the Strategic Advisory Committee will include all members of the Faculty Advisory
Committee as well as key administrators, including President Kathy Krendl; Provost and Vice-President
for Academic Affairs, Victoria McGillin; Vice President for Business Affairs, Rebecca VazquezSkillings; Executive Director of Information Technology Services, Jeff Kasson; Associate Dean for
Institutional Effectiveness, Barbara Wharton; Human Resources and Benefits Coordinator, Laura Ford;
Dean of the School of Professional Studies and Dean of the Graduate School, Dr. Barbara Schaffner;
Chair of the University Personnel Committee, Robert Johnson; and Chair of the Faculty Council
Executive Committee, John Stefano. Liaisons from the Board of Trustees, as well as other university
stakeholders, will also participate in the project as members of this committee. This group will meet 2-3
times per year to learn about ongoing findings and recommendations for implementing change.
Fourth, we will employ several support personnel. A part-time project administrator, Dr. Jessica
Garrett Mills, currently an adjunct professor at Otterbein, will oversee day-to-day planning and
implementation of the project. Specifically, Dr. Garrett Mills will work closely with the PIs and will help
develop assessment instruments, collect and analyze data, and report results. She will also maintain the
ADVANCE website and oversee student employees. In addition, work study students will be employed
for 10-15 hours per week during the school year, and students will be employed for 10 hours per week
over the summer. These individuals will work in support of the project coordinator and will be engaged in
supervised data collection. Finally, an external evaluator, Julie Graber, CEO of The Institute on Women,
will conduct formative (Yr. 1) and summative (Yr. 2) evaluation of our assessments and implementations.
In addition to these four tiers of support, this project also has unqualified support from
Otterbein’s President and Provost. With an increase in the number of women in leadership positions and
the presence of motivated women in STEM departments, Otterbein is taking steps to change the culture of
the university. The data we will collect will set the groundwork for these changes by providing needed
research on women in adjunct positions and women at small institutions, two populations that are
typically ignored by research on challenges faced by STEM women. An ADVANCE catalyst grant will
allow us to develop innovative approaches to the advancement of STEM women at all levels and to serve
as a models for other PUIs.
Otterbein is well-positioned to disseminate the results of our work to initiate change in our
broader geographic region. Within approximately one hour of our campus, there are at least 10 small
colleges or universities with whom we can share information (e.g., Antioch College, Ohio Wesleyan
University, Denison University, Ohio Dominican University, Kenyon College, Wittenberg University,
Capital University, Mount Vernon Nazarene University, Central State University, and Wilberforce
University) and possibly partner on future initiatives, as has been done by other ADVANCE awardees,
such as SUN—Skidmore Union Network or the LEADER Consortium at Wright State. We will hold a
regional summit at the conclusion of the project for participants for these schools. To broaden our impact
to the national level, we will also present our outcomes at a joint meeting of the AAC & U and the
American Conference of Academic Deans (ACAD).
In summary, our project is well-informed by practices instituted in 19 NSF ADVANCE
institutions. Data collection and change will occur at all levels of the institution, and participants will
come from adjunct professors through the President and Board of Trustees. We will institute continued
monitoring of equity data and disseminate our findings widely (Bilimoria et al., 2008). Without
intervention, it is estimated that equity for female faculty will take at least another hundred years (Cress &
Hart, 2009; Valian, 1999). This is no time for resignation. We are poised to act decisively at Otterbein,
first by understanding what needs to be changed, and then by developing strategic plans for institutional
transformation.
Table 3. Project summary, including research objectives and timeline.
Activity Description
STEREOTYPES & BIASES
COACHE
Stats on STEM women
Women who left Otterbein
Evaluate policies
Applicant pools
Gender IAT
Discussion/focus group
Small group discussion—faculty
Small group discussion—admin.
WAGES academic simulation
Interactive theater
SERVICE & LEADERSHIP
Time-use diaries
Types of teaching
Service related policies
Service obligations in past 5 yrs.
Paths to female leadership
Service obligation statements
Dean consult new faculty schedules
Horizontal mentoring
BALANCE
Families/children issues
Policies related to work/life balance
Child care needs
Parenting roles of female scientists
Time use diary
Work/life balance recs
Alternative solutions
INVISIBLE WOMEN
“Invisible women”
“Invisible women”
Assessing dual-career issues
Assessing dual-career issues
Faculty discussions
Develop formal recommendations
OTHER
Input from campus community
Input from Administrators
Website
Travel to other ADVANCE sites
Conference with local institutions
Activity Type
Survey
Data analysis
Interview
Data analysis
Data analysis
Test
Focus group
PLC
PLC
Implementation
Implementation
Year 1
FA
Jterm
FA
Jterm
SP
SU
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Survey
Data analysis
Survey
Focus group
Measurement
Implementation
Implementation
Town hall
Meetings
Dissemination
Data Collection
Dissemination
Year 2
SU
X
X
Measurement
Data collection
Data collection
Data collection
Interviews
Implementation
Implementation
Implementation
Survey
Focus group
Survey
Focus group
PLC
Implementation
SP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
References – Equality through Inquiry - 1
References
Acker, M. (2009). Breast is best … but not everywhere: Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward private
and public breastfeeding. Sex Roles, 61, 476–490. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9655-z
ADEPT (2011). Awareness of decisions in evaluating promotion and tenure, Georgia Institute of
Technology. Retrieved from http://www.adept.gatech.edu/library.htm
American Association of University Women (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. Retrieved from
http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/whysofew.pdf
Auriemma, D. L., & Klein, T. P. (2010, June). Experiences and challenges of women combining
academic careers and motherhood. Paper presented at the AAUP Conference, Washington DC.
Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/F86E0505-198B-4E2E-B4308B7185305744/0/AuriemmaKlein.pdf
Bachen, Christine M., McLoughlin, M. M., & Garcia, S. S. (1999). Assessing the role of gender in
college students' evaluations of faculty.Communication Education, 48(3), 193-210.
Baker, P. J., & Zey-Ferrell, M. (1982). Chairpersons as negotiators of faculty role commitments.
Teaching Sociology, 9(3), 229.
Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. D. (1997). Gender and race-based standards of competence: Lower
minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 544-557.
Bilimoria, D., Joy, S., & Liang, X. (2008). Breaking barriers and creating inclusiveness: Lessons of
organizational transformation to advance women faculty in academic science and engineering,
Human Resources Management, 47(3), 423-441.
Blair, I.V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 6, 242-261.
Center for the Education of Women (CEW) (2007). Family friendly policies in higher education: A five
year report. University of Michigan. Retrieved from
http://www.cew.umich.edu/sites/default/files/ReduxBriefFinal5-1.pdf
Chang, M. L. (2010). Shortchanged: Why women have less wealth and what can be done about it. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Cheryan, S., Siy, J. O., Vichayapai, M., Kim, S., & Drury, B. J. (in press). Do female and male role
models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women's anticipated success in STEM? Social
Psychological and Personality Science.
Comer, D. R., & Stites-Doe, S. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of faculty women’s academic–
parental role balancing. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 27(3), 495 - 512.
doi:10.1007/s10834-006-9021-z
Connelly, R., Degraff, D. S., & Willis, R. A. (2004). The value of employer-sponsored child care to
employees. Industrial Relations, 43, 759–792.
Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American
Journal of Sociology, 112, 1297–1338. doi: 10.1086/511799
Cuddy, A.J.C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn't cut
the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 701-718.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of
social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 40, 61–149.
Cress, C. M., & Hart, J. (2009). Playing soccer on the football field: The persistence of gender inequities
for women faculty. Equity and Excellence in Education, 42(4), 473-488.
Crittenden, A. (2001). The price of motherhood: Why the most important job in the world is still the least
valued. New York: Henry Holt.
Crosby, F. J., & Clayton, S. (2001). Affirmative action: Psychological contributions to policy. Analyses of
Social Issues and Public Policy, 1, 71–87. doi: 10.1111/1530-2415.00004
Crosby, F. J., Williams, J. C., & Biernat, M. (2004). The maternal wall. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4),
675-682.
Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders
and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5
Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals
and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051-1057. doi: 10.1177/0956797610377342
Drago, R., & Williams, J. (2000). A half-time tenure track proposal. Change, 32(6), 46-51.
Drago, R.,Colbeck, C., Stauffer, K., Pirretti, A., Burkum, K., Fazioli, J., . . . Habasevich, T. (2006). The
avoidance of bias against caregiving: The case of academic faculty. American Behavioral
Scientist. 49,1222–1247. doi: 10.1177/0002764206286387
Dunson, D., Colombo, B., & Baird, D. (2002). Changes with age in the level and duration of fertility in
the menstrual cycle. Human Reproduction, 17, 1399-1403.
Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 11, 135-172.
Ecklund, E. H., & Lincoln, A. E. (2011) Scientists want more children. PLoS ONE 6(8): e22590.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022590
Essien, F. (1997). Black women in the sciences: Challenges along the pipeline and in the academy. In
L. Benjamin (Ed), Black women in the academy: Promises and perils (pp. 91-102). Gainesville,
FL: University of Florida Press.
Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. E. (1991). Social science research on
trial: Use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.American
Psychologist,46(10), 1049-1060. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.10.1049
Fogg, P. (2003). Family time. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(40), A10. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Family-Time/5114/
Fothergill, A., & Feltey, K. M. (2003). ‘I’ve worked very hard and slept very little’: Mothers on the
tenure track. Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, 5(2), 7-19.
Freeman, H. R. (1994). Student evaluations of college instructors: Effects of type of course taught,
instructor gender and gender role, and student gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4),
627-30.
Gaff, J. G., & Lambert, L. M. (1996). Socializing future faculty to the values of undergraduate education.
Change, (July/August), 38-45.
Gender Bias Learning Project (2011). Gender bias bingo: A project of the Center for WorkLife Law, UC
Hastings College of the Law. Retrieved from http://www.genderbiasbingo.com/games.html
Gerten, A. (2011). Moving beyond family-friendly policies for faculty mothers. Affilia, 26, 47-58. doi:
10.1177/0886109910392532
Gevin, V. (2005). Small steps towards campus child care. Nature,437, 446-447. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/204572029/132D51040D152958D00/82?accountid=28350
Hebel, S. (2011, September). New NSF policies provide flexibility for researchers who juggle family and
career. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/NewNSF-Policies-Provide/129168/
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The
implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 81–92. doi: 10.1037/00219010.92.1.81.
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuches, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to
women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416
Hewlett, S. A., Buck Luce, C., Servon, L. J., Sherbin, L., Shiller, P., Sosnovich, E., &Sumberg, K.
(2008). The Athena Factor: Reversing the brain drain in science, engineering and technology
(Harvard Business Review Research Report). Boston: Harvard Business Publishing.
Jaschik, S. (2009) Rejecting the academic fast track. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/01/15/family
Kaplan, K. (2010). A dual dilemma. Nature,466, 1144-1145. Retrieved from
http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2010/100826/full/nj7310-1144a.html
Karukstis, K. K. (2009). Women in science, beyond the research university: Overlooked and undervalued.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(41),A23-A23.
Karukstis, K. K. (2010). The narrowing gender gap? Enhancing the leadership of female STEM faculty at
liberal arts colleges [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.hmc.edu
/files/chemistry/ASBMB_panel_presentation.pdf?PHPSESSID=3cd360163980e13366d815b8b03
f6edc
Kilian, S. E., & Rudman, L. A. (1998). Wanting it both ways: Do women approve of benevolent sexism?
Sex Roles, 39, 333-352. Retrieved from
http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/pdf.cgi/Kilianski_Stephen_E.pdf?issn=03600025&issue=v39i56&article=333_wibwdwaobs
King, E. B., Botsford, W. E., & Huffman, A. H. (2009). Work, family, and organizational advancement:
Does balance support the perceived advancement of mothers? Sex Roles, 61, 879 - 891.
doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9692-7
Kittelstrom, A. (2006, December). The academic-motherhood handicap. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Academic-Motherhood/64073/
Laster, J. (2010). Time crunch for female scientists: They do more housework than men. The Chronicle of
Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Female-Scientists-DoMore/63641/
Livingston, G., & Cohn, D. (Revised August 19, 2010). The new demography of American motherhood.
Retrieved from Pew Research Center website: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1586/changingdemographic-characteristics-american-mothers
Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2002, November-December). Do babies matter? The effect of family
formation on the lifelong careers of academic men and women. Academe Online. Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2002/ND/Feat/Maso.htm
Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2004). Do babies matter (Part II)? Closing the baby gap. Academe, 90(6).
Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2004/ND/Feat/04ndmaso.htm
Mason, M.A., Goulden, M., & Frasch, K. (2010, November). Keeping women in the science pipeline.
Paper presented at Focus on Workplace Flexibility Conference, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://workplaceflexibility.org/images/uploads/program_papers/mason__keeping_women_in_the_science_pipeline.pdf
Mason,M. A., Stacy, A., Goulden, M., Hoffman, C., & Frasch, K. (2005). Faculty family friendly edge:
An initiative for tenure-track faculty at the University of California. Retrieved from
http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/ucfamilyfriendlyedge.html
Masser, B., Grass, K., & Nesic, M. (2007). We like you, but we don’t want you’— the impact of
pregnancy in the workplace. Sex Roles, 57, 703-712.
McQuillan, J., Greil, A., Shreffler, K., &Tichenor, V. (2008). The importance of motherhood among
women in the contemporary U.S. Gender and Society, 22, 477–496. doi
10.1177/0891243208319359
Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., Holmes, E., &Agiomavritis, S. (2011). The ivory ceiling of service work.
Academe, 97(1). Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2011/JF/Feat/misr.htm
National Science Foundation (NSF) (1996). SIDEBAR: Are marriage and science compatible for women?
Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf96311/5sidebr2.htm
Nelson, T. E., Acker, M. L., and Manis, M. (1996). Irrepressible stereotypes. Journal of Experimental
Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002a). Harvesting intergroup implicit attitudes and
beliefs from a demonstration website. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 101–
115. doi: 10.1037//1089-2699.6.1.101
Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002b). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠
me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 44–59. doi: 10.1037//00223514.83.1.44
Oberst, J. R. (2010). Big thinking at small universities. Science, 329. Retrieved from
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2010_09_10/scien
ce.opms.r1000094
O’Meara, K., & Bloomgarden, A. (2010). Prestige at what cost: Examining the consequences of striving
for faculty work-life, reward systems, and satisfaction. Journal of the Professoriate, 4(1), 40-74.
Otterbein University. (n.d.). Spotlight: Twins achieve identical dream. Retrieved from
http://www.otterbein.edu/spotlight.aspx?profileId=27
Otterbein University (2007). Seeing double: Twins at Otterbein. Towers, Summer, 22-23.
Park, S. M. (1996). Research, teaching, and service: Why shouldn't women's work count? The Journal of
Higher Education, 67(1), 46-84.
Phelan, J. E., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Competent yet out in the cold: Shifting
criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32,
406-413.
Pruitt-Logan, A. S., Gaff, J. G., & Jentoft, J. E. (2002). Preparing future faculty in the sciences and
mathematics: A guide for change. Retrieved from Council of Graduate Schools website:
http://www.preparing-faculty.org/PFFWeb.PFF3Manual.pdf
Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in
cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157
Schiebinger, L., & Gilmartin, S. K. (2010). Housework is an academic issue. Academe, 96(1). Retrieved
from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2010/JF/feat/schie.htm
Schiebinger, L., Henderson, A. D., & Gilmartin, S. K. (2008). Dual-career academic couples: What
universities need to know. Stanford, CA: Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research of
Stanford University.
Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Malley, J., & Stewart, A. J. (2006). The climate for women in academic
science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 47-58.
Shields, S. A., Zawadzki, M. J., & Johnson, R. N. (2011). The impact of the Workshop Activity for
Gender Equity Simulation in the Academy (WAGES–Academic) in demonstrating cumulative
effects of gender bias. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(2), 120-129. doi:
10.1037/a0022953
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance.
American Psychologist, 52, 613-629. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613
Steinpreis, R. E., Anders, K. A., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula
vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41, 509-528.
STEM family travel (2011). Retrieved from http://stemfamilytravel.org/
Travis, C. B., Gross, L. J., & Johnson, B. A. (2009). Tracking the gender pay gap: A case study.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(4), 410-418. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01518.x
Trower, C. A., & Bleak, J. L. (2004). Study of New Scholars. Institutional Type: Statistical
Report.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Valdata, P. (2005).The ticking of the biological and tenure clocks: Princeton University institutes new
policy, placing the school at the forefront of family-friendly workplaces. Diverse Issues in Higher
Education. Retrieved from http://diverseeducation.com/article/5087/
Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2007). The chair’s role in helping faculty negotiate work and family
issues. The Department Chair, 18(1), 1–3. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=123&sid=b96b7eba-f4b24947-8d3e-5dc67b120311%40sessionmgr104
Webb, S. (2008). Liberal arts college faculty: Finding the sweet spot. Science. Retrieved from
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/2008_06_27/ca
redit_a0800096
Williams, J. (2000). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Williams, J. C. (2004). Hitting the maternal wall. Academe, 90(6). Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2004/ND/Feat/04ndwill.htm
Williams, J. (2005). The glass ceiling and the maternal wall in academia. New Directions for Higher
Education, 2005(130), 91-105. Retrieved from
http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/pdf.cgi/Williams_Joan_C.pdf?issn=02710560&issue=v2005i0130
&article=91_tgcatmwia
Williams, J. (2010). Reshaping the work–family debate: Why men and class matter. Harvard University
Press.
Wilson, R. (1999, June 25). Timing is everything: Academe’s annual baby boom. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 45(42), A14–A16.
Wolf-Wendel, L., Twombly, S., & Rice, S. (2003). The two-body problem: Dual-career-couple hiring
practices in higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wolf-Wendel, L. E., & Ward, K. (2006). Academic life and motherhood: Variations by institutional type.
Higher Education, 52, 487-521. doi 10.1007/s 10734-005-0364-4
Wright, R. E. (2006). Student evaluations of faculty: Concerns raised in the literature, and possible
solutions. College Student Journal, 40(2), 417-422.

1208986 COVER SHEET FOR PROPOSAL TO THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION NSF 10-593 11/07/11

Transcription

Similar documents

Higher Education Science and Technology and Economic

DEMONSTRATION FOR USING THE POCKET TIRE PLUGGER info

Be the Game - Gmu - George Mason University

Dumb Cane or Dieffenbachia

HSS Alumni News - Otterbein University

View/Download - The Center for Gender Equity in Science and

Maturation of Erythrocytes - Fall River Public Schools

JAG flocomponents LP

lunar viewing brings crowds to mamaroneck harbor

Potosi R-III School District Potosi, MO